Following the asterixes is some material that happened in a conversation on a friend's Facebook page, during a remarkably respectful conversation about a purported coverup by the CDC of some statistically significant correlation between vaccines and autism rates in a couple of sub-populations.
As most people who know me probably know, I was open to questioning the AMA/CDC line on just about everything because my upbringing with Old Boys Skool doctors was ... less than confidence-building. And then I got pregnant. And then, even on the gentler vaccine schedule I was trying to meet the CDC halfway with, my four month old had a grande mal seizure 12 hours after receiving two vaccines.
And I'm realllllllly tired of *anyone* dismissing the anti-vaccine citizens as "anti-science." Because, while I am sure there are some that are proudly "anti-science," most parents I know that have struggled with this decision understand "science" and agree with "science" and made their decisions (usually not one simple decision, and there is usually ongoing evaluation of new information and one's own historical thinking) based on science and/or statistics.
And at the 'end' of the facebook convo, when people were agreeing to disagree for now, one of the CDC-or-bust participants used the knee-jerk, nail-in-the-coffin phrase "fear-mongering anti-science conspiracy theories." And that was not a respectful standing down. And I stood right back up.
But here's the thing. I've have the vaccine-people-aren't-raving-lunatics interaction before. This time I think I came through with extra clarity. But I made it a point to *unapologetically* credit myself. Because too often lately, I've been seeing people who lean on "you have no degree" or "you have no job in the field" and that's SUCH. COMPLETE. BULLSHIT.
Actually, I'm gonna go find a different interaction with a different friend and append that after this.
But here is the first one, and I challenge readers to consider how comfortable they are with(/how uncomfortable it makes them to read) me being reasonably in-the-face about my intellectual qualifications. Because, as a woman in America, being in-your-face competent is generally considered bitchy (even without being "better than you," which is stupid to assume about anyone, and actually is bitchy/jerk'y). It was *really* uncomfortable to put it that plainly, and the only reason I could is because I was conscious that my discomfort was probably a cultural artifact and it was probably healthy to stand forth and state truth.
Because no conversation can reach healthy solutions if people with pertinent skills and knowledge are being prejudicially dismissed by the power structure.
I have re-ordered my comments to hit the item that concerns me the most first. I added (x) numbering if anyone cares to reconstruct the original order. You can tell I was terribly (in the serious, not snotty, sense) serious because not even once in three long passages did I use an emoticon ... .
And the thing of it is, although this was a huge mental/emotional exercise, coming back and reading it a couple of days later, I was *still* stinting myself. But I think it was an appropriate level, as [the appearance of bashing people on the head] is not conducive to [them listening to your content].
I just had no patience with being discounted. I'm soooooo damnably tired of that.
* * *
(2) When I had my first child I was working in a respected AMA-affiliated
medical statistical analysis office and getting very high reviews; at
one point they sent me as the office representative to learn a new
analytical methodology and bring it back to present to the office. My
degree is neither in statistics nor a science field, because I didn't
enjoy them enough to choose those fields, but I am highly competent in
both types of thinking with a broad knowledge base in science. And,
although this is less true now, I used to attract and seek likeminded
science-competent people.
It is due to science and statistics that I left the medical system for my
children's births. Awareness of science and statistics, and the general
interest monied medical establishment has in stretching the scientific
truth in the direction that keeps their expertise "trusted" (it is not
like the medical truth hasn't been vastly stretched before) made me
aware of the potential pitfalls in vaccine statistical presentations ...
and cautious enough, because of the genetic predisposition, to alter
the recommended schedule even with Baby1. Actual medical/scientific
malfeasance by my damn doctors, which only was corrected in terms of the
CDCs publishable stats because I (1) chose to, (2) understood how to,
and (3) was personally strong enough to fight the pressure, put pox on
what little trust of the CDCs stats I was trying to preserve "for the
good of society." A person, and probably especially a woman (as most
are still taught to question themselves instead of the Authority,
especially when it comes to mothering), who was less capable than I was,
would probably not have gotten that grande mal seizure into the records
(much less the "extra fussiness, fevers," or etc that the CDC form
claims parents and doctors are supposed to report for 14 days after each
vaccination, but I know noone who does).
(1) [Name], please recognize that although there are certainly anti-science
theories that are the source of some anti-vaccine decisions, it is the
case that most people I know who have questioned, avoided, or altered
the CDC's vaccination schedule for their children did so based on
research into biological processes / data collection practices ...
questions triggered by the anecdotal freakouts? Yes. Unthinking or
uneducated or merely reactively fearful? No. It is not fair to the
debate, nationally nor interpersonally, to allow yourself to "other" the
people who have dissented by tossing the entire lot into a
psychological category you feel comfortable dismissing as intellectually
valid.
This reactionism is like when Rosie O'Donnell came out as gay and all the
anti-gay people were like, "See? She has batshit crazy political
opinions and is a bitch! Lesbians are maladjusted and horrible! We
have to ignore them and make sure all the kids growing up know they are
morally wrong in every bit of their thinking!" (If you didn't know any
reactionary social conservatives at that time, trust me: it was ugly.)
The decision to avoid or alter the vaccination schedule can be, and is at
least often, quite scientific indeed. Even if there are those who
decide based on things not within the current sphere of science (and
therefore not currently scientifically justifiable, whether or not they
might someday prove accurate, about which I make no assertions -- as a
scientist should reasonably state, unless something has been reasonably
disproven, and even then there should be acknowledged awareness that
revolutions in knowledge and discovery happen).
The inconvenient requirement for honesty and accuracy in medical assertions
-- enough honesty and accuracy that *in fact* only the non-scientific
thinkers can still question the presented conclusions, and your
prejudice can be reasonably justified -- is firmly in the interest of
society as a whole. We *are* fighting for the best health of our nation
and humanity (not just our children and our children's children), or we
wouldn't have engaged in making ourselves hated and despised by (what I
assume is) the majority.
(3) What I want is for vaccine safety stats to be accurate in both collection
(this is the major gap as far as I can see) and analysis (with probable
vast underreporting, it is unlikely even someone who wanted to cover up
"bad" stats needs to inaccurately report what little they collect), and for a clear scientific explanation of
which parts of the immune system the vaccines trigger and which parts
they don't to become part of the common understanding. As a scientific
thinker, raised by and among scientific thinkers, with a mind respected
by every science professional who has ever worked with me in school or
professionally, I HATE not being able to rationally trust the CDC on
this. It is enormously frustrating that logic and ethical scientific
concern will not allow me to trust what should be a proudly scientific
institution (including one that corrects itself with alacrity and
publicly, but without shame -- we all make mistakes -- for accidental or
even prejudicial errors, in order to maintain public trust, and corrects
itself with deep apologies when and if it discovers malfeasance has led
to publishing misinformation).
I am sorry that this is so long, but it is really quite important to the
entire set of discussion that noone discount someone else based on their
conclusions -- the thinking that got someone to an end with which
someone is uncomfortable is not legitimately dismissable by the force of
that discomfort.
* * *
(There was a bit after that, but this part qualifies as "my blog" rather than "the particular argument.")
(Following, as an addendum, was actually a mental precursor to the above. It is me reacting to a friend who did specifically complain about people citing "science" who weren't professionals. This friend is all-out on blogs etc and so I feel confident quoting his half of the convo, although it's the content I'm getting at and so I've removed names for now.
* * *
HIS FACEBOOK POST: i appreciate science too, but claiming that your argument is 'science'
(as opposed to my own) is one way to turn me off on the rest of what you
have to say. (unless you are actually paid to be a real scientist.)
ME: Problem is, a lot of people are paid to do science but don't actually hold the necessary truths to be self-evident.
HIM: that makes them scientists, no?
HIM: Science, like Patriotism, is the last vestige of a scoundrel...
ME: Nope, it makes them science professionals, maybe. Scientists remember things
like what a theory is (it's a best-we-can-right-now), and accept --
nay, and the best rejoice for the awesomeness of science! -- when their
beliefs turn out to be disproved by new science work. Science is about
hanging loose, because the next thing that happens might alter or
disprove "your" thing.
HIM: 'science professionals'... means 'i'm in it for the paycheck'.. like making
boxes or writing bail bonds... its not science at that point,
ME (continuing): For sure, though, there are peeps who cite "science!" and expect the rest
of the world to keel over dead from the irrefutability of their
assertion. Sometimes it's reasonable science, sometimes not so much.
And people's reactions in either case are usually in line with whatever
they already believed, and remarkably little to do with the validity of
the science asserted.
Did you see the "scientific study" a few weeks ago about Bible kids being
less able to identify what is and isn't actually possible in stories at
age 6? Seriously. The methodology was decent if one ignores basic
child development, but the assumptions were prejudiced and (between
ignoring standard awareness of young human animals and being prejudiced)
the conclusions ended up nearly completely useless. Annnnnnd ...
several of my anti-religious friends posted it to Facebook like it
proved something besides "kids tend to believe the adults in charge of
them, at age 6." :-P.
HIM: i didnt see that.
ME (responding to his previous 'paycheck' comment): yes -- that is what I meant. Although you have to add the cache' that "science" currently gives to a professional
ME (about the 6 year olds): 'twas a frustrating case of could have been interesting science gone boring/stupid/anti-useful : P
ME (paycheck again): The computer industry has some of this problem as well ... there are now
millions of people out there who can write code (program the computers,
in olde tyme speak ;-) ), but there aren't that many who actually understand how to do it well
(right) or make sure to do it well. It used to be that only the folks
who really found it fascinating would get involved, which cut down on
the idiot noise level. Science is terribly important now, and
industrially is a huge source of jobs and GDP and suchlike, but there
are too many people with a "science" degree but who don't think in a way
that keeps their work scientifically healthy (if they are allowed to
consider doing so in the first place by their money-focussed,
stock-value-aware employers, right?). It's frustrating.
ME: Do you want the link to the kids/Bible article? It's pretty much what I
said, but snarkier against all the ridiculously irresponsible parents
who teach their kids the bible ...
HIM: i'm not a science type... but i think science is supposed to be boring unless you are of the science type.
HIM: minutae doesnt inspire me.
ME: ;-) and yet the details are often where the holes in one's assumptions are exposed ...
It is nice when a scientist happens who also can handle media well, so the
inherent excitement science-minded people feel can be transmitted,
some, to everyone :-)
* * *
(at this point it was 2:24am and the conversation ended)
and here is the article about how credulous 6 year olds are, which apparently was worth trumpeting about, and how prejudiced the researchers were, which they, of course, completely missed ...)
* * *
Oh ho ho! That article is no longer linked on my friend's page! I wonder if the publishers took it down or whether he did. I think it was NYT, I'm pretty sure the study was in Chicago ... it also might have been the WSJ ...
Well, crap, because my commentary was a good one. Let me see if I stored it someplace, or can at least search the article ...
Sigh. Nope, gone forever. Essentially, though, the researchers tried to take stock of what kids would believe and then consider what they had been taught ... and then discredited the bible-exposed kids as thinkers because they had learned from their grownups in exactly the same way every 6 year old does, and the researchers were themselves prejudiced against not-currently-explicable-by-standard-issue-science occurrences. As I stated there, as a person who grew up with highest-caliber scientific and mathematical thinkers AND high-level miracle work, this differentiation into "false" and "true" is not valid (and believe me, living with what the world yells and yells and yells is a dichotomy was not fun to grow up with and is still a pain often enough in my middle age), and their conclusions were psychologically self-serving rather than scientifically bounded (there was no sense of 'perhaps' or 'we suspect' or even 'according to broad scientific consensus' ... just, 'these kids are better at discerning what is actually possible than those kids.' Which of course leads to kids who can't think outside the box even *if* one ignores the possibility of miracles.
Altogether quite irritating :P.
Ironically, I did just find an article from the WSJ that captures, from essentially the same (maybe actually the same?) data and metholodogy, a different angle on the mind-closing/open-thinking piece ...
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703344704574610002061841322
(And wow is there some disturbing stuff about 6 year olds and credulity on the internet -- because of course this is a major question in some very upsetting court cases :-(. So, be careful if you go searching it as well.)
.
